Presentations

Pila Isaganicruz

Description
reviewer
Categories
Published
of 88
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  NOTES:  Public International Law 2008 LEI Notes in Disclaimer  : The risk of use, non-use and misuse of this material shall be solely borne by the user. “Nam omnia praeclara tam difficilia quam rara sunt” For all that is excellent and eminent is as difficult as it is rare -Spinoza on Ethics  Notes: PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 2008 2 INTRODUCTION DefinitionPublic v Private International LawBasis of Public International Law1.Naturalist2.Positivists3.ccletics!hree rand Divisions#elations between International and $unici%al Law1.From the view%oint of doctrinea.Dualistb.$onists2.From the view of %racticea.Doctrine of !ransformationb.Doctrine of Incor%oration &'('& DEFINITION OF Public International La  It is the bod) of rules and %rinci%les that arereco*ni+ed as le*all) bindin* and which *overnthe relations of states and other entities investedwith international le*al %ersonalit). Formerl),nown as - la o! nations  coined b) /erem)Bentham in 10. Public International La Distin uis#e$ Fro%Pri&ate International La'Con!lict o! Las It is that %art of the law of each tate whichdetermines whether4 in dealin* with a factualsituation4 an event or transaction between %rivateindividuals or entities involvin* a forei*n element4the law of some other tate will be reco*ni+ed. PublicPri&ate 1. Natur e Public isinternational innature. Itis a law ofasoverei*nover thosesub5ectedto hisswa)67%enheim 8Lauter%acht4 3.9:s a rule4Private isnational ormunici%al incharacter.xce%t whenembodied ina treat) orconvention4becomesinternationalin character.It is a law4not above4but between4soverei*nstates and is4therefore4 awea,er law.67%enheim 8Lauter%acht43.92. Settlemen Dis%utesareresolved#ecourse iswithmunici%al t of Dispute throu*hinternational modesofsettlement 8 li,ene*otiations andarbitration4re%risalsand evenwartribunalsthrou*h localadministrative and 5udicial%rocesses.3. Source Derivedfrom suchsources asinternationalcustoms4internationalconventions and the*eneral%rinci%lesof law.;onsistsmainl) fromthelawma,in*authorit)   ofeach state.<. Subject :%%lies torelationsstates inter se and otherinternational%ersons.#e*ulates therelations ofindividualswhether ofthe samenationalit) ornot.=. Responsibility  for violation Infractionsareusuall)collectivein thesense thatitattachesdirectl) tothe stateand not toitsnationals. enerall)4entails onl)individualres%onsibilit). ()SIS OF PIL * + SC,OOLS OF T,OU,T . >h) arerules of international law bindin*? /  1. Naturalist  8 ★ PIL is a branch of the *reat law of nature 8the sum of those %rinci%les which ou*ht tocontrol human conduct4 bein* founded onthe ver) nature of man as a rational andsocial bein*. 6@u*o rotius9 ★ PIL is bindin* u%on tates  Notes: PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 2008 + 2. Positivist  8 ★ Basis is to be found in the consent andconduct of tates. ★ Tacit  consent in the case of customar)international law. ★ Express  in conventional law. ★ Presumed   in the *eneral law of nations.6;ornelius van B)n,ershoe,93. Groatians or Eclectics  8 ★ :cce%ts the doctrine of natural law4 butmaintained that tates were accountableonl) to their own conscience for theobservance of the duties im%osed b)natural law4 unless the) had a*reed to bebound to treat those duties as %art of%ositive law. 6merich von Aattel9 ★ $iddle *round + R)ND DI0ISIONS 1. Laws of Peace  8 normal relations betweenstates in the absence of war.2. Laws of War   8 relations between hostile orbelli*erent states durin* wartime.3. Laws of Neutrality   8 relations between a non%artici%ant state and a %artici%ant state durin*wartime. !his also refers to the relations amon*non%artici%atin* states. REL)TIONS (ET1EEN INTERN)TION)L L)1 )NDUNICIP)L L)1Fro% t#e 0iepoint o! Doctrine 1. Dualists 8 ★ International Law and $unici%al Law aretwo com%letel) se%arate realms. ★ See distinctions Nos. 1! #. 2. $onists 8 ★ Denies that PIL and $unici%al Law areessential different. ★ In both laws4 it is the individual %ersonswho in the ultimate anal)sis are re*ulatedb) the law. !hat both laws are far frombein* essentiall) different and must bere*arded as %arts of the same 5uristicconce%tion. For them there is oneness orunit) of all laws. ★ PIL is su%erior to munici%al lawCinternational law4 bein* the one whichdetermines the 5urisdictional limits of the%ersonal and territorial com%etence oftates. Fro% t#e 0iepoint o! Practice 1. International !ribunals ★ PIL su%erior to $unici%al Law ★ :rt. 204 Aienna ;onvention in the law of!reaties 8 : state -ma) not invo,e the%rovisions of its internal law as 5ustificationfor its failure to %erform a treat) ★ tate le*all) bound to observe its treat)obli*ations4 once si*ned and ratified 2. $unici%al %here 8 de%ends on what doctrine isfollowed Doctrine o! Incorporation - #ules of international law form %art of the law ofthe land and no further le*islative action isneeded to ma,e such rules a%%licable in thedomestic s%here. 6ec. of /ustice v. Lantion #N13<E=4 /an. 14 29!his is followed in the Phili%%ines:rt. II4 ec. 2 8 -!he Phili%%inesGado%ts the*enerall) acce%ted %rinci%les of international lawas %art of the law of the landG @owever4 no%rimac) is im%lied. 3: 1#at are t#ese enerall4 accepte$principles5):  Pacta sunt servanda4 soverei*n eHualit) amon*states4 %rinci%le of state immunit) ri*ht of statesto selfdefense Secretar4 O! 6ustice v  7 6u$ e Lantion an$6i%enez .R 8+9;<= 8> 6an7 2???/F)CTS:  : %ossible conflict between the J#Pxtradition !reat) and Phili%%ine law ISSUE:  >7N4 under the Doctrine of Incor%oration4International Law %revails over $unici%al Law ,ELD:  N7. Jnder the doctrine of incor%oration4 rules ofinternational law form %art of the law of the landand no further le*islative action is needed toma,e such rules a%%licable in the domestics%here.!he doctrine of incor%oration is a%%lied wheneverlocal courts are confronted with situations inwhich there a%%ears to be a conflict between arule of international law and the %rovisions of thelocal stateKs constitutionstatute. First4 efforts should first be exerted to harmoni+ethem4 so as to *ive effect to both. !his is becauseit is %resumed that munici%al law was enactedwith %ro%er re*ard for the *enerall) acce%ted%rinci%les of international law in observance ofthe incor%oration clause.@owever4 if the conflict is irreconcilable and achoice has to be made between a rule ofinternational law and munici%al law45uris%rudence dictates that the munici%al courtsshould u%hold munici%al law.  Notes: PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 2008  !his is because such courts are or*ans ofmunici%al law and are accordin*l) bound b) it inall circumstances. !he fact that international lawwas made %art of the law of the land does not%ertain to or im%l) the %rimac) of internationallaw over nationalmunici%al law in the munici%als%here.!he doctrine of incor%oration4 as a%%lied in mostcountries4 decrees that rules of international laware *iven eHual standin* with4 but are notsu%erior to4 national le*islative enactments.In case of conflict4 the courts should harmoni+eboth laws first and if there exists an unavoidablecontradiction between them4 the %rinci%le of lex  posterior derogat priori   a treat) ma) re%eal astatute and a statute ma) re%eal a treat)  willa%%l). But if these laws are found in conflict withthe ;onstitution4 these laws must be stric,en outas invalid.In states where the constitution is the hi*hest lawof the land4 such as in ours4 both statutes andtreaties ma) be invalidated if the) are in conflictwith the constitution.u%reme ;ourt has the %ower to invalidate atreat) 8 ec. =M2Ma4 :rt. AIII4 10 ;onstitution 3: 1#at is t#e $octrine o! incorporation5 ,ois it applie$ b4 local courts5,el$:  Jnder the doctrine of incor%oration4 rulesof international law form %art of the law of theland and no further le*islative action is needed toma,e such rules a%%licable in the domestics%here.!he doctrine of incor%oration is a%%lied whenevermunici%al tribunals Mor local courts areconfronted with situations in which there a%%earsto be a conflict between a rule of internationallaw and the %rovisions of the ;onstitution orstatute of the local state. fforts should first beexerted to harmoni+e them4 so as to *ive effect toboth since it is to be %resumed that munici%al lawwas enacted with %ro%er re*ard for the *enerall)acce%ted %rinci%les of international law inobservance of the Incor%oration ;lause in ection24 :rticle II of the ;onstitution. In a situationhowever4 where the conflict is irreconcilable anda choice has to be made between a rule ofinternational law and munici%al law45uris%rudence dictates that munici%al law shouldbe u%held b) the munici%al courts for the reasonthat such courts are or*ans of munici%al law andare accordin*l) bound b) it in all circumstances.!he fact that international law has been made%art of the law of the land does not %ertain to orim%l) the %rimac) of international law overnational or munici%al law in the munici%al s%here.!he doctrine of incor%oration4 as a%%lied in mostcountries4 decrees that rules of international laware *iven eHual standin* with4 but are notsu%erior to4 national le*islative enactments.:ccordin*l)4 the %rinci%le of lex %osterior dero*at%riori ta,es effect 8 a treat) ma) re%eal a statuteand a statute ma) re%eal a treat). In stateswhere the ;onstitution is the hi*hest law of theland4 such as the #e%ublic of the Phili%%ines4 bothstatutes and treaties ma) be invalidated if the)are in conflict with the ;onstitution. Mecretar)of /ustice v. @on. #al%h ;. Lantion4 .#. No.13<E=4 /an. 14 24 n Banc 6$elo9 3: Is so&erei nt4 reall4 absolute an$ all-enco%passin 5 I! not= #at are its restrictionsan$ li%itations5,el$:  >hile soverei*nt) has traditionall) beendeemed absolute and allencom%assin* on thedomestic level4 it is however sub5ect torestrictions and limitations voluntaril) a*reed tob) the Phili%%ines4 ex%ressl) or im%liedl)4 as amember of the famil) of nations. B) the doctrineof incor%oration4 the countr) is bound b)*enerall) acce%ted %rinci%les of international law4which are considered to be automaticall) %art ofour own laws. 7ne of the oldest and mostfundamental rules in international law is %actasunt servanda 8 international a*reements must be%erformed in *ood faith. : state which hascontracted valid international obli*ations is boundto ma,e in its le*islations such modifications asma) be necessar) to ensure the fulfillment of theobli*ations.B) their inherent nature4 treaties reall) limit orrestrict the absoluteness of soverei*nt). B) theirvoluntar) act4 nations ma) surrender someas%ects of their state %ower in exchan*e for*reater benefits *ranted b) or derived from aconvention or %act. :fter all4 states4 li,eindividuals4 live with coeHuals4 and in %ursuit ofmutuall) covenanted ob5ectives and benefits4the) also commonl) a*ree to limit the exercise oftheir otherwise absolute ri*hts. !hus4 treatieshave been used to record a*reements betweentates concernin* such widel) diverse matters as4for exam%le4 the lease of naval bases4 the sale orcession of territor)4 the termination of war4 there*ulation of conduct of hostilities4 the formationof alliances4 the re*ulation of commercialrelations4 the settlin* of claims4 the la)in* downof rules *overnin* conduct in %eace and theestablishment of international or*ani+ations. !hesoverei*nt) of a state therefore cannot in fact andin realit) be considered absolute. ;ertainrestrictions enter into the %icture M1 limitationsim%osed b) the ver) nature of membershi% in thefamil) of nations and M2 limitations im%osed b)treat) sti%ulations. M!anada v. :n*ara4 202 ;#:14 $a) 24 10 6Pan*aniban9 Doctrine o! Trans!or%ation * Le*islative action is reHuired to ma,e the treat)enforceable in the munici%al s%here. 
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks